"Superintendence" Powers U/S 20 HR & CE Act Can't Be Invoked To Substitute Temple Administrative Authority: Kerala High Court

Referring to P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon, the Court noted that “superintendence” denotes oversight, care, and direction with authority to guide. It emphasised that the expressions “superintendence” and “control” inherently presuppose the existence of two authorities, one to exercise primary powers and discharge duties, and another to supervise and oversee the functioning of the former.

A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar was dealing with a writ petition which raised a challenge to orders issued by the Devaswom Board and the Commissioner effectively placing the administration of a temple under an Executive Officer, bypassing the existing scheme of management. It observed, “The powers vested in the Board under Section 20 of the HR & CE Act are to pass such orders for the supervision of the affairs of the temple. The powers conferred on the Commissioner under Section 20 of the Act are subject to the other provisions of the Act, and consist of general superintendence and control over the administration of religious endowments so as to ensure proper administration and due appropriation of the income. The word superintendence is not defined in the Act…In the instant case, the authority invested with the powers of superintendence and control has appointed an Executive Officer to discharge the duties of the original authority. The word “superintendence and control” are not defined in the HR & CE Act. Therefore, those words should be interpreted in its general and literal meaning”.

“If there is maladministration, misfeasance or mismanagement by the Manager of the temple, who is acting for and on behalf of the Trustee appointed as per Ext.P1 scheme, it is open for the Board to act in accordance with Section 45 of the Act. But the Board has not opted to invoke Section 45 of the HR & CE Act; instead, the respondent Board has issued Ext.P6 order by an indirect method to perform the functions or discharge the duties of the original authority, which in our considered view, is impermissible”, it noted further.

Advocate K. Mohanakannan appeared for the petitioner and R. Ranjanie Senior Counsel appeared for the respondent.

The matter pertained to the administration of Sree Annapoorneswari Temple, Puthucode, one among 18 temples governed by a scheme framed on September 03, 1936, under which the Mooppil Swamiyar is the hereditary trustee and the Manager appointed by him administers the temples.

The petitioner, serving as such Manager, was issued a notice by the Assistant Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board following an inspection conducted on November 17, 2021, which pointed out certain defects in administration, including issues relating to maintenance of accounts, audit, and temple management practices.

The petitioner contended that the inspection was conducted without prior notice and responded by stating that records were properly maintained, delays in audit were due to records being kept at another temple under Board control, and that necessary committees had already been constituted with due approval from the authorities.

Noting the terms, the Bench noted, “The words ‘superintendence’ and ‘control’ presuppose two authorities, i.e., one authority to exercise the powers and discharge the duties, and another authority to supervise and control the affairs of the former”.

The Court found that the authority vested with supervisory powers had, in effect, appointed an Executive Officer to discharge the duties of the original administrative authority. Such an exercise, the Court held, amounts to an impermissible substitution of the primary authority under the guise of supervision.

Considering the facts and relevant provision, the Bench observed, “…we are of the view that, Ext.P6 order issued by the Commissioner is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The other consequential orders Exts. P8 and P9 are also liable to be set aside. While granting relief, the Court issued directions to the petitioner to ensure transparency and proper administration of the temple. It directed that all registers and books of accounts be maintained strictly in accordance with statutory provisions and bye-laws, and mandated scrupulous compliance with Chapter VII of the HR & CE Act concerning budget, accounts, and audit”.

While allowing the petition, the Bench further noted, “…we deem it appropriate to issue directions to the petitioner to ensure transparency and clarity in the administration of Sree Annappoorneswari temple. The writ petitioner shall maintain all the registers and books of accounts in accordance with the statute and bye-law. Furthermore, we direct that the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the provisions of Chapter-VII of the HR and CE Act with respect to the budget accounts and audit".

Cause Title: Edamana Vasudevan Namboothiri v. Malabar Devaswom Board & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:25119]

Appearances:

Petitioner: K. Mohanakannan, Adarsh Mohan K., Advocates.

Respondents: R. Ranjanie, SC, Nisha George, H. Praveen, Sidharth .R. Wariyar, Keerthi M., Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment